Inadvertent ureteric trauma with an indwelling urethral catheter: limitations of ultrasonography in urological diagnosis

BJUI ◽  
2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Devang Desai ◽  
Kevin Lah ◽  
Ian Mackenzie ◽  
Troy Gianduzzo
Keyword(s):  
1973 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 62-66 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. E. MAROSSZEKY ◽  
R. H. FARNSWORTH ◽  
R. F. JONES

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Junghoon Lee ◽  
Jungyo Suh ◽  
Chang Wook Jeong ◽  
Cheol Kwak ◽  
Hyeon Hoe Kim ◽  
...  

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> We investigated the efficacy of a urethral catheter alone for intraperitoneal perforation during transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT). <b><i>Patients and Methods:</i></b> We retrospectively evaluated the medical records of 4,543 patients who underwent TURBT from January 2000 to December 2017 using the Clinical Data Warehouse system. The clinicopathologic characteristics, recurrence-free survival, and progression-free survival were compared between the patient groups with intraperitoneal perforation treated with the Foley catheter alone, extraperitoneal perforation, and matched control TURBT. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Intraperitoneal perforation and extraperitoneal perforation were observed in 16 (35.6%) and 29 (64.4%) patients, respectively. In the intraperitoneal perforation group, 11 (68.8%), 2 (12.5%), and 3 (18.8%) patients were treated with the Foley catheter alone, additional percutaneous drainage, and delayed open surgery, respectively. The use of the Foley catheter alone in patients with intraperitoneal perforation of smaller size than the cystoscope or no pelvic radiotherapy history showed improved efficacy without sequelae or therapeutic delay. One of the 2 patients with the size of the intraperitoneal perforation larger than the cystoscope was successfully treated with the Foley catheter alone, whereas the other patient underwent delayed surgical repair. There was no difference in recurrence-free survival and progression-free survival of the intraperitoneal perforation treated with the Foley catheter alone compared to those of the matched control TURBT (<i>p</i> = 0.909, <i>p</i> = 0.518) and the extraperitoneal perforation (<i>p</i> = 0.458, <i>p</i> = 0.699). <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> Intraperitoneal perforation rarely occurred during TURBT. In the case of intraperitoneal perforation of size smaller than cystoscopy or without pelvic radiotherapy history, treatment with the Foley alone showed successful improvement and safe oncological results. Therefore, treatment with the urethral catheter alone can be carefully considered when an intraperitoneal perforation smaller than the cystoscope size or without pelvic radiotherapy history occurs.


1982 ◽  
Vol 54 (3) ◽  
pp. 316-319 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. F. JONES ◽  
P. S. YOUNG ◽  
J. E. MAROSSZEKY

2013 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 75-82 ◽  
Author(s):  
F. Álvarez-Lerma ◽  
M.P. Gracia-Arnillas ◽  
M. Palomar ◽  
P. Olaechea ◽  
J. Insausti ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. e235022
Author(s):  
Kelly Storm Hoffmann ◽  
Alok Godse

A seven-year-old boy was referred to our Accident and Emergency department with a history of urinary retention secondary to urinary tract infection and an inability to pass a urethral catheter. He had been treated a month before for suspected pyelonephritis by the referring hospital. Attempts at urethral catheterisation failed, and he was taken to theatre for cystourethroscopy and catheter placement. At this time, an impacted urethral stone was discovered. Because it could not be dislodged, a suprapubic catheter was placed, and the child was brought back at a later date for definitive management. Investigations revealed a pure calcium oxalate stone that was secondary in origin. There has been no recurrence during a follow-up period of 6 months.This illustrates that while rare, urethral stones do occur in children and should be considered in children presenting with urinary retention, haematuria and/or abdominal pain.


2010 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 308-310 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathan A. Bockholt ◽  
Kenneth G. Nepple ◽  
Charles R. Powell ◽  
Karl J. Kreder

A 23-year-old female was involved in a motor vehicle collision with multiple injuries, including a right acetabular fracture, but no pelvic fracture. Urology consultation was obtained due to difficulty placing a urethral catheter. Examination revealed a longitudinal urethral tear with vaginal laceration extending 2 cm from the urethral meatus proximally toward the bladder neck. The longitudinal urethral tear was repaired primarily. Traumatic female urethral injury in the absence of a pelvic fracture is an exceedingly rare occurrence.


Author(s):  
Muslim Shah ◽  
Fazal Wahab ◽  
Farman Ullah ◽  
Umar Gul ◽  
Abdul Aziz ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 108 (Supplement_6) ◽  
Author(s):  
I Dokubo ◽  
J Armitage

Abstract Introduction Urethral catheterisation is a procedure frequently done in the hospital by medical personnel. Appropriate documentation is necessary to ensure safe clinical care and to reduce the risk of litigation. Method We randomly reviewed electronic notes of patients seen by the on-call urology team who had a urethral catheter inserted in September 2020. Reviewing the trust’s guidelines, we considered that appropriate documentation should include reference to the following 10 items; indication, chaperone present, consent obtained, groin examination, catheter size, catheter type, insertion process, urine colour, water in balloon and residual volume were reviewed. Results A total of 50 patients were included. 72%(36/50) were inserted by a member of the urology team. Only 28%(14/50) had all 10 items documented. Indication for catheterisation was best documented at 94%(47/50) while presence of a chaperone and groin examination (i.e. presence of a foreskin and its replacement post-catheterisation) were the lowest at 44%(22/50). Conclusions This study shows there is low compliance to adequate documentation of urethral catheterisation. A ‘smart phrase’ has been developed for use with our Trusts electronic medical records system to assist clinicians with appropriate documentation. Clinicians that use the phrase ‘.icat’ are prompted to document all 10 requisite items. This uses the mnemonic i-CATHETAR [indication, Chaperone and consent, groin Assessment, Tube (catheter size and type), insertion process (Hard/Easy), urine Tint, Aqua in balloon, Residual volume]. A second audit cycle is currently being done to review the effectiveness of this intervention.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document